West v. Pierce et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/15/15. (mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER H. WEST,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN PIERCE, et al.,
Defendants.

Civ. No. 14-1486-GMS

MEMORANDUM
I.

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Christopher H. West ("West"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn

Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit alleging violations of his
civilrightspursuantto42U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. l.) Heappearspraseandwasgranted
permission to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 4.) The court proceeds to review and screen the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

II.

BACKGROUND
The plaintiff alleges that, from April 2013 to date, the defendants have violated his right

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment/ torture, right to legal work, and religious freedom.
West alleges that he suffers from an unstable mental condition and, due to his self-injurious
behavior, was to be constantly watched and have no access to sparks, pens, or toothbrushes. In
addition, corrections staff were to thoroughly search rooms where West was placed because he
was on psychological close observation.

When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a
federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law. West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
1

1

In April 2013, the defendant Corporal Katrina Burley ("Burley") was taking West to the
infirmary to undergo an x-ray. There was not a mental health observer in the x-ray room, and
Burley failed to secure an ink pen which West then grabbed and then swallowed. 2 Burley
ordered another correctional officer to choke Burley and she pepper sprayed Burley during the
choking. West alleges that the combined and cumulative effect of the officer's choking him and
the pepper spray caused the pen to rupture West's esophagus and lodge in his throat. West was
airlifted to the hospital for emergency surgery.
Upon his return to the VCC, West was placed in solitary confinement. West alleges his
placement in solitary confinement exacerbated his mental disorders. He alleges that the
defendant nurse practitioner Rhonda Montgomery ("Montgomery") stopped his medication.
West alleges that the defendant Dr. Paola Mufioz ("Dr. Mufioz") began working with the
defendant Dr. Lynch around July 2014. Dr. Mufioz set some parameters for West while he was
housed in solitary confinement including denial of recreation (three hours per week), no access
to legal work, no bible, soap only three times per week and only in the shower, observation by
camera, and removal of books/newspapers.
West wrote to the defendant Warden Pierce ("Pierce") and the Attorney General of the
State of Delaware regarding threats and the denial of his federal rights. West alleges that his
requests were denied and further restrictions were visited upon him. West alleges that the
defendant Deputy Warden Parker ("Parker") told Dr. Mufioz and Montgomery, "we had a
helluva time with this guy swallowing stuff up [in] HRYCI, we put him in population and he was
fine until they brought him down here and stuck him in the SHU." (D.I. 1.) West alleges that
the defendants knew his placement in solitary confinement and the restriction of his family

2

West was having an x-ray to locate a spork that he had previously swallowed.
2

support was cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, West alleges that in June 2014, he filed a
habeas corpus petition, but it was intercepted by administration and destroyed. 3
West seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauper is and

prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informapauperis
actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008);

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because the plaintiff proceeds prose, his pleading
is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at
94 (citations omitted).
An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(l), a
court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327-

The court takes judicial notice that West filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in this court on December 23, 2014. West v. Pierce, Civ. No. 14-1513-GMS (D.
Del.). To the extent West alleges denial of access to the courts, the claim fails. A violation of
the First Amendment right of access to the courts is only established where a litigant shows that
he was actually injured by the alleged denial of access. The actual injury requirement is a
constitutional prerequisite to suit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Christopher v.
Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Here, West has failed to show actual injury.

3

3

28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67
F .3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an
inmate's pen and refused to give it back).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under§ 1915(e)(2)(B)).
However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court
must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The
assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps:
"(1) identify[] the elements of the claim, (2) review[] the complaint to strike conclusory

allegations, and then (3) look[] at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluat[e]
whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged." Malleus
v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in
the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

4

IV.

DISCUSSION

West claims that he was subjected to excessive force, he was denied medication, and he
was housed under unlawful conditions of confinement while housed in solitary confinement and/
or the Security Housing Unit ("SHU"). West will be allowed to proceed with his excessive force
claim against Burley.
However, the allegations with regard to the stopping of medication, without more, do not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Similarly, the conditions of confinement claims fail
to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. A condition of confinement violates the Eighth
Amendment only if it is so reprehensible as to be deemed inhumane under contemporary
standards or such that it deprives an inmate of minimal civilized measure of the necessities of
life. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992); Wilson v. Seiter, 501U.S.294, 298 (1991).
When an Eighth Amendment claim is brought against a prison official it must meet two
requirements: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the
prison official must have been deliberately indifferent to the inmate's health or safety. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference is a subjective standard in that the
prison official must actually have known or been aware of the excessive risk to inmate safety.

Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2001).
Although the conditions to which West was subjected may be harsher than those in
minimum security, they do not constitute a denial of"the minimal civilized measures of life's
necessities." See, e.g., Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 444-47 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding no Eighth
Amendment violation where prisoner was placed in a strip cell without clothes, the water in the
cell was turned off and the mattress removed, and prisoner's bedding, clothing, legal mail, and

5

hygienic supplies were withheld). West may have found his conditions of confinement in
solitary confinement and/or SHU uncomfortable, but they are no different than those afforded to
other inmates who are housed there.

V.

CONCLUSION
West will be allowed to proceed with his excessive force claim against Burley. The court

will dismiss the remaining claims and the defendants Warden Pierce, Scarboro, Parker, Jeffrey
Crothers, Brennan, Dr. Paola Mufi.oz, Dr. Ray Edward Lynch, and Rhonda Montgomery as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and§ 1915(A)(b). 4
An appropriate order will be entered.

~,.) /j

'2015

Wilmington, Delaware

4

Scarboro, Jeffrey Carothers, and Brennan are named as defendants in the caption of the
complaint but there are no allegations directed against them in the body of the complaint.
6